Haryana

Karnal

cc/249/13

Mahish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manger M/s Mohan Tractor Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Sharma

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 249 of 2013

                                                    Date of instt. 23.05.2013

                                                     Date of decision 03.11.2017

 

Manish Kumar son of Ram Kumar resident of village Sangoi District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. The Manager, M/s Mohan Tractor Pvt. Ltd. 212, Sector-3, Industrial Area G.T.Road, Karnal.

2. M/s Ashok Layland head office plot no.195/196 Alipur Grahi Alipur New Delhi 110036 through its Director/Manager.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rania……..Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Gaurav Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri Jitender Sharma Adv. for opposite parties.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a truck open body registration no.HR45-B-0802 Engine no.CYHZ 106761 chasis no.MBI AWJFC8CRX G0191 Model 2012 from OP no.1 with three years guarantee in all respects, which was manufactured by OP no.2.  Since very beginning the vehicle in question was not working properly and using excess mobil oil due to some technical fault in the engine and the locks of windows were also not working properly and in that regard he contacted the OP no.1 so many times and on 23.4.2013 application was moved to the OPs. He spent amount of Rs.12311/- on the repair of said vehicle, but the problem did not solve. The value of truck is Rs.945856/-. He requested the OPs several times to replace the same with new one, but OP has not replaced the vehicle despite repeated request. Due to this acts and conduct of the OPs he suffered mental agony, pain and harassment as well as financial loss to him.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; concealment of facts; mis-joinder and non-joinder and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been submitted that there is no problem in the vehicle as alleged. The vehicle reported at 53930 Kms on 23.4.2013 for engine oil consumption, no blow bye found, Top up oil with 5 liter oil. Vehicle reported at 62659 Kms on 1.5.2013 for compressor problem. Repaired the compressor due to the ring worn out and oil top with 4 liter U.W. vehicle reported at 81649 Kms on 1.8.2013 for engine oil service, Engine oil consumption not found. Vehicle reported to workshop at 90093 on 11.10.2013 for hub oil seal replacement and same has been done. There was no complaint reported related to Engine oil consumption. Vehicle reported at 102722 Kms on 17.12.2013 for service. There was no problem regarding Engine oil. There was no guarantee of the vehicle in question as alleged. However, there is a warrantee of one and half year or 1.50 lacs Kms which come first. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O10 and closed the evidence on 27.01.2015.

4.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Priyesh Poovanna Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 12.8.2016.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

6.             It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased a truck open body bearing Registration no.HR-45B-0802 in June, 2012 from OP no1 manufactured by OP no.2.

7.             According to the complainant, the OP no.1 gave guarantee of 3 years for the vehicle, whereas according to OPs, there was no guarantee, however there was a warrantee of 1½ year or 1.50 lakh Kms which come first. To prove the same, the OPs have placed on the file Ex.O1, according to which the warrantee period shall be 18 months from the date of sale or 150000 Kms, whichever is earlier. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that there was guarantee of 3 years, so this contention of complainant has not force.

8.             Further according to complainant, since the beginning vehicle in question was not working properly and is using excess mobil oil due to some technical fault in the engine of the said vehicle. Inspite of repeated requests of the complainant, the OPs have not replaced the vehicle of complainant. The complainant has spent a huge amount of Rs.12,311/- on the repair of said vehicle. Whereas according to OPs, there was no problem in the vehicle as alleged. The vehicle was reported at 53930 Kms on 23.4.2013 for engine oil consumption, no blow bye found, Top up oil with 5 liter oil. Thereafter, vehicle reported at 62659 Kms on 1.5.2013 for compressor problem and the compressor was repaired and oil top with 4 liter. Again vehicle reported at 81649 Kms on 1.8.2013 for engine oil service, Engine oil consumption not found. Again vehicle reported to workshop at 90093 on 11.10.2013 for hub oil seal replacement and same has been done. No problem regarding engine oil was found. To prove the same, the OPs produced on the file job cards regarding the service of the vehicle as Ex.O-2 dated 23.4.2013 at 53930 Kms reading, Ex.O-3 dated 9.5.2013 dated 63644 Kms, Ex.O-4 dated 17.5.2013 at 67887 Kms, Ex.O-5 dated 25.6.2013 dated 72814 Kms, Ex.O6 dated 1.8.2013 at 81649 Kms, Ex.O-7 dated 11.10.2013 at 90093 Kms, Ex.O-8 19.11.2013 dated 97343 Kms, Ex.O-9 dated 17.12.2013 dated 102722 Kms and Ex.O-10 dated 12.5.2014 at 112340 Kms. From the job cards, it is clear that the complainant has made the problem of engine oil consumption only once i.e. in Ex.O-4 dated 17.5.2013. According to the OPs, the said problem was rectified on 17.5.2013 and if the same was not cured the complainant might had raised the same problem in next services job cards but the complainant had never raised such problem thereafter. To prove his allegation, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. The documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 are the bills for the articles purchased by the complainant from OP no.1. Out of these, Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 shows the purchase of engine oil i.e. on 28.3.2013, 23.4.2013 and 30.4.2013. The complainant has not placed any job card on the file  from which it can be proved that there was problem of engine oil consumption. There is no job card on the file for 28.3.2013 and 30.4.2013. On the other hand, the OPs placed job card dated 23.4.2013 in which the complainant asked for engine oil check and not raised the problem of engine oil consumption. The complainant has placed a copy of application dated 23.4.2013 Ex.C-1 alleging that this is a complaint made to OP no.1. The complainant has neither placed any postal receipt to prove that the same was sent to OP no.1, nor there is any endorsement regarding its receipt by the OP no.1. Moreover, from this application i.e. Ex.C-1, it is clear that as per complainant himself, the problem of engine oil consumption started from 28.3.2013 which means there was no such problem before 28.3.2013. From the job cards Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-10, it is clear that the problem of engine oil consumption was raised on 17.5.2013 and thereafter the complainant has not raised the problem of engine oil consumption which means there was no such problem of engine oil consumption, thereafter. From the above facts, it is clear that there was no problem of engine oil consumption from the beginning and the said problem occurred in between and after 17.5.2013 there was also no such problem as alleged by the complainant.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the complainant argued that on the request of complainant, the truck in question was got examined by this Forum from the Mechanic of PWD (B &R) Karnal who submitted his report dated 1.9.2017 and according to which the engine needs repair and overhauling and the carelessness of the agency was found. On perusal of this report, it is clear that the Model of truck in question is 2012 and when it was checked by the mechanic of PWD (B&R), the truck had covered mileage 217702 Kms and after covering such a long mileage, the requirement of repair or overhauling of the engine is natural. So far the problem of consumption of engine oil is concerned, the said mechanic was not in a position give any expert opinion after such a long period of five years, therefore, this report of PWD mechanic is of no help to the complainant. Moreover, when a truck has covered 217772 Kms in five years shows that there was no problem in its engine.

10.           In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the engine of truck in question  due to which the engine was consuming excess mobil oil or that the OPs were deficient in providing services to him.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:2.11.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)            (Anil Sharma)

                            Member                    Member